The Church in Malaysia has been arguing that the BM Bible has been used in Malaysia for hundred of years (400 to be precise). To this I have rebutted that this is not possible as Christianity was only introduced much much later. One of my source for such argument is wikipedia (see christianity in malaysia) which unambiguously stated then to the effect that christianity was only introduced in in sabah in 1882 to the hakkas.
And you know what happended now after my argument? They recently amended wikipedia to show it was introduced much earlier during the Spanish era. It stated “The influence of the Spanish missionaries coming mainly from neighboring Philippines resulted in Christianity, in its Roman Catholic form, rising to prominence amongst Kadazans in Sabah.” This is stated prior to the statement that christianity was introduced to the hakkas in 1882.
Betul ke ni?
Then there is a footnote pula to support this. It leads you to this http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=82004.And you know what there is nothing there at all mentioning about christianity by the Spanish people. Can you believe that?
I will rebut to this ridiculousness later but want to put you the context on why this issue was raised. It was pursuant to a debate that I had with one gullible but polite person called Adam at Nut Graph. He is arguing that based on this reference Christianity was introduced much much earlier than 1882. He argued that Sultan sulu ceded Sabah to Spain much earlier in 1700s. Thus a long history of BM Bible???
Man. Can you believe the deception people do to win an argument. They amend wikipedia. For goodness sake. The more falsehood you create the more inconsistent it becomes with other historical facts. There is so much wikipedia you can amend. I point blank state this and this was my reply”
“Jahat betul these Christians [???] and I hope you’re [adam] not part of it. The sources you quoted were amended by them to deceive. Some of the sources you quoted expressly stated prior to this that Christianity was introduced in Sabah to the hakkas in 1880s. After my highlight it was then amended with unproven and unsubstantiated statement that the kadazan was introduced to Christianity by the Spanish much much earlier. There’s no evidence adduce to this.
If you care to read the sources you quoted, there’s no evidence that Spanish was physically in Sabah. These lies were created recently and they think people can’t discern. Don’t they realize that the more they fabricate the more inconsistent the historical facts become.
Now please be informed that Sultan Sulu signed the treaty which purported to cede Sabah to Spain in 1851 [only] after the attack by Spain in Jolo. The treaty was disputed on whether there was cessation. International Court of Justice acknowledged the cessation only happened in 1885 aje. And please bear in mind that by 1851 Sultan Sulu was only controlling a part of Sabah (coastal area) as the rest was controlled by Bulungan Sultanate.
So much so is the doubt of effective control by the Spanish, the British signed lease agreements of the sabah area with sultan sulu and not Spain in 1761 and again 1878. What happened to the Spanish?
The Madrid treaty of 1885 [where Spain acceded Sabah to UK] only confirms what’s on the ground and the British wanted it [Sabah] badly. Please bear in mind that the US position is that Sabah was never ceded to Spain and objected to the British annexation thru the Madrid treaty.
So stop these lies to deceive. You’re going to amend a lot on Wikipedia to be consistent. You cannot hide the truth lah. The Spanish at best has de jure control in 1878 aje. In 1882 please be mindful the British made kudat the capital. Bila hari pula Spain came to Sabah to convert?….”
P.S. I have intentionally used the word “Christians” to provoke and express my anger. The debate has been between the Christians and Muslims. Only the Christians have interest to amend the Wikipedia. The other more precise way is to refer to “those supporting the Christians who wants to use Allah” [aka christians??] but this is too wordy. Anyway the reference to “these Christians” has the same meaning intent and to the point.